The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-05
. BRAIN GOES FREE.
He Esca Jes Through Peculiar
Circumstances.
OTHER BUSINESS IN COURT
The Martin Murder Case Postponed
Till the Future-Malloy and
Sweeney ArraiEned.

IN the Ihlrd District Court yesterday
morning. The defendants attorneys
were Ben 6heeks and ]. H. Moyle, and
Mr.. Clark conducted the prosecution.
ANNA PETERS BRAIN
was the first witness. She testified
that she lived IN the Twenty-first Ward
in this city; had lived in this city for
six years; from the 9th of March, 1886
to June list, 1887, had lived
with defendant as his wife,
and had been recognized by him as
such; he had other wives living when
be married her, and had FIVE wives
now living; witness had one child hv-
ing. II was years old; during the last
four years the defendant had not lived
with any wife but herself; was &C
qusinted with Mary Bailey Brain;
could not say whether defendant still
recognized her as his wife or not; he
never referred to her as his wife; did
not know whether Mary B. Brain vas
supported by the defendant or not.
Witness had been married to the de-
PENDANT twice, the last marriage hav-
ing taken place in June, 1887: defendant
went 10 the Pennitentiary in 1885.
MARY BAILEY BRAIN
was the next witness. She testified that
she had married the defendant in the
fall of 1852; had three children by him.
the youngest being % years old; lived
in the Twentieth Ward in a house
owned by the defendant: he had sup
ported her until August. 1887, by send
ing money tn her; the money was sent
IN an envelope, and amounted TO
$50 per month. One of these en-
was here produced, and identified by
the witness as one sent to her by the
defendant. Witness had not held any
conversation with defendant in regard
to separation since January 1st, 1886; |
was married to him in Salt Lake City;
he had wife living at the time; defen- |
dant and his first vile made an agree
ment of separation before witness |
married him; he gave her the agree |
ment. This agreement was produce q, |
but the defense objected 10 its being
offered in evidence, and it was with
drawn.
Court took a recess until pm.
IN THE AFTERNOON,
Mary B. Brain was again called to the |
stand, and testified that she had visited !
the defendant once while he was con-
fined in the Penitentiary; had no con
versation with him as to what course |
be intended TO pursue with regard To |
his wives; he did not say that he in |
tended to live with the youngest one. |
Several envelopes in which defendant
had sent money TO the witness were
here introduced by the prosecu'ion.)
Continuing, the witness said she had
been known as Mrs. Brain since Janu-
airy 1st, 1885; had not written to defend
ant during the past two years.
To Mr.. Sheeks the witness testified |
that she first met defendant in st. Louis
in August or September, 1852; WAS
married before meeting him, and ha6
two children; left her husband in st |
Louis; had never been divorced from |
him; did not need it, as be had been |
dead for ten years; got church divorce |
from him; had: no Ill-feeing toWari |
he had not lived with her |
for four years.
JOSEPH BEAM
was called and testified that he lived in |
the Twentieth Ward; Mary B. Brain
vas his mother, and the defendant his
father; had borne verbal messages from
the defendant to his mother during the |
past year and q half; those messages
we're about his mothers allowance; de-
endant said he would never see her
want solong as he had anything.
This was ali the evidence offered. Mr..
Clark made brief address. to which |
Mr.. Moyle for the defense, replied. Mr..
Clark made the closing argument for
the prosecution.
IN THE CHARGE
to the jury the court said that the main
question for the jury to decide was
whether the evidence showed that de-
PENDANT cohablted with Mary Bailey |
Brain during the time mentioned in the |
and whether Mary Bailey |
Brain was defendants lawful wife; the |
evidence showed that when the defend |
ant married her, he had lawful wife |
living, and she had lawful husband |
living, SO that a lawful marriage |
between them was impossible; there was
10 evidence TO show that since the |
defendant came from the Peniten tiary |
he had associated with NJ AIRY Bailey /
BraiE as his wife. The only evidence OF
was that he had sent her
letters, and addressed them Mrs. e.
Brain. II was true that he had shown a
of the institution of marriage, |
and arecklessness with regard 20 form |
ing associations with women, out the
evidence did not show cohabitation |
with Mary B. Brain. There was moth |
ing for the jury to do but to hnd YER
dict of not guilty.
The jury found the defendant not |
guilty without leaving the box.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Settings Of civil cases, TO be tried dur
ing October. were made as follows:
Monday, October 10th - No I2S-
Thomas Gibbons VS.. Young e. Carter.
1S6-Wm. Fuller VS.. S. L. & Fl. D.
r. E.
Tuesday. October 11th-3S-George
Q. Stsley VS.. M. B. Murray. 203-John
A. Lawrence VS.. Park NJ. & N. Com
pany.
Thursday, October 18th -I33 ESQ.
B. Lusions VS.. Northern Uhiet Mining
Company. 230-George T. Holiday VS.
E. G. Williamson. 251-M. Greensboro
~